The illusion of immaculate intervention

Well, it seems that the United States has resorted to bribery in Afghanistan. This is not surprising nor, in itself, a bad thing. Paying individuals, institutions or even countries for their support has long been an instrument of foreign policy by the United States and other powers. It is often easier, more effective, and less expensive to use money rather than physical coercion or moral suasion to get what we want. Nowadays, such payment is sometimes formalized though civilian or military assistance agreements where the quid for the pro may never be mentioned in the text but is understood on both sides. Sometimes such payment is made in a more traditional manner: unnumbered $100 dollar bills in brown paper bags passed to a corrupt official. Whether we get value for our money in Afghanistan is another question altogether. We should have wound up our combat presence there years ago. Bribery may be a traditional and useful part of statecraft but there is no point in pouring good money after bad.

The Afghanistan story does illustrate a broader truth about foreign policy: often, it isn’t pretty. We don’t get to pick our allies on the basis of their moral probity. Military interventions can get downright ugly. When we plunge into war we not only must accept the financial price and the terrible toll exacted on our professional military and their families; we will also be compelled, at times, to make common cause with thieves and even murderers. Civilians will die in error. (I will spare the reader that repellent euphemism: collateral damage.) Prisoners will be abused. Atrocities will occur. Sometimes our allies will responsible. Sometimes our own forces — as well trained as they are — will be to blame. We can and should do our best to minimize such eventualities. But we cannot eradicate them. The massive application of violence we call war has dynamics of its own and they lead, with inevitability, to outcomes we regard with distaste and even horror. Gen. William T. Sherman declared 150 years ago that “war is cruelty.” It still is, even if innocent women and children are killed by drone instead of artillery shell.

Sometimes the stakes are so high that we must accept the tragic consequences of war. In World War II, we made common cause – rightly – with one of the most monstrous regimes in human history: Stalin’s Soviet Union. But we need to acknowledge these costs straightforwardly. And we should include them in our calculus when we meditate upon the wisdom of military intervention. In particular, we need to disabuse ourselves of the fantasy that we can conduct war without moral compromise. Purity is lost when the first bomb is dropped.

This is important to recall as the drumbeat continues for involving the United States in the Syrian civil war and attacking Iranian nuclear facilities. Perhaps one or both of these courses are wise, though I have my doubts. But we must be prepared to accept the full consequences of our actions. War is a terrible thing, even if undertaken in a just cause, and we should embark upon it without comforting illusions. Good intentions have never yet resurrected a dead child.

For those who call for war, I ask that they say after me: There is no such thing as immaculate military intervention. Again: there is no such thing as immaculate military intervention. Repeat as necessary.

Joe Barnes is the Baker Institute’s Bonner Means Baker Fellow. From 1979 to 1993, he was a career diplomat with the U.S. Department of State, serving in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and South Asia.